DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply received 7/7/2026.
Claims 21-29 (Group 1) were elected with traverse and therefore claims 30-40 are withdrawn.
Claims 21-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 21-29 in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal appears on the ground that searching both species does not present a serious search and/or examination burden. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Group I and Group II have different classifications that present a search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 and therefore its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 recites “encrypting, by the patient device, the diagnostic information within the patient device using a hypertext transfer protocol secure method, wherein the encryption is based upon a unique user identifier corresponding to a wireless signal generated by the diagnostic device” and “encrypting, by the patient device, first voice and video signals generated during the video conferencing session”. The specification does not recite that the patient device encrypts the diagnostic information nor that it encrypts first voice and video signals. The specification recites that the voice and video data is encrypted by suing https that is transmitted via the network and that the encryption comes “pre-installed in browser software” (paragraph 36). The specification is silent on the patient device actively encrypting the signals and the diagnostic information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-29 are drawn to a method which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 21 recites “permitting a real-time virtual medical examination, comprising: generating, associated with a patient, diagnostic information based on a signal received from; establishing communication over between associated with a physician; establishing a video conferencing session to allow the physician and patient to discuss the diagnostic information; transmitting, the encrypted diagnostic information to the physician.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between a physician and a patient, as reflected in the specification, which states that “Embodiments of a system for performing a real-time virtual medical examination are also disclosed herein. In one such embodiment, the system includes a network permitting communication between a patient device and a physician device. The patient device is configured to generate encrypted diagnostic information based on a signal transmitted from at least one diagnostic device received signal.” (see: specification paragraph 9). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “Virtual medical examination system 20 can also be configured to allow a patient and physician to conduct video conference calls. In one implementation, system 20 is configured to allow a patient and physician to conduct secure, encrypted video conference calls that cannot be monitored or accessed by unauthorized third parties. In one example, the encryption provides for HIPAA compliant transmission of patient information. In another implementation, multiple authorized parties may participate in the video conference calls, thereby allowing multiple physicians (who may be remote from one another and from the patient) to collaborate and/or jointly conduct an examination of the patient.” (see: specification paragraph 35). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “diagnostic device”, “patient device”, “network”, “physician device”, are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the transmitting and communicating is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 21 furthers recite “encrypting, by the patient device, the diagnostic information within the patient device using a hypertext transfer protocol secure method, wherein the encryption is based upon a unique user identifier corresponding to a wireless signal generated by the diagnostic device;” and “encrypting, by the patient device, first voice and video signals generated during the video conferencing session”, which are nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and amount to insignificant post-solution activity concerning an insignificant application. The addition of an insignificant extra-solution activity limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, these claimed additional elements are incidental to the performance of transmitting healthcare data using basic transmission of data using passive encryption certificates on browser software (paragraphs 35-36) and as outlined in the recitations above. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and
Paragraph 22, where “Remote patient device 36, physician device 38, patient records server 40, videoconferencing server 42 and remote content manager server 44 may each be a computer having an internal configuration of hardware including a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) and a memory. Accordingly, remote patient device 36 can have a CPU 36 a and a memory 36 b, physician device 38 can have a CPU 38 a and a memory 38 b, patient records server 40 can have a CPU 40 a and a memory 40 b, videoconferencing server 42 can have a CPU 42 a and a memory 42 b and remote content manager server 44 can have a CPU 44 a and a memory 44 b. CPUs 36 a, 38 a, 40 a, 42 a and 44 a can be a controller for controlling the operations of patient device 36, physician device 38, patient records server 40, videoconferencing server 42 and remote content manager server 44, respectively. CPUs 36 a, 38 a, 40 a, 42 a and 44 a can each be connected to memories 36 b, 38 b, 40 b, 42 b and 44 b, respectively, by, for example, a memory bus. Memories 36 b, 38 b, 40 b, 42 b and 44 b can store data and program instructions which are used by CPUs 36 a, 38 a, 40 a, 42 a and 44 a, respectively. Other suitable implementations of patient device 36, physician device 38, patient records server 40, videoconferencing server 42 and remote content manager server 44 are possible”
Paragraph 23, where “Exemplary diagnostic devices 32 include electrocardiographs (ECG), pulse oximeters, spirometers, sphygmomanometers, weight scales, stethoscopes, blood chemistry analyzers, microscopes, ultrasounds probes, etc. The diagnostic devices 32 can include a patient diagnostic information wireless transmitter for transmitting patient diagnostic information to a remote patient device 36. Communications between diagnostic devices 32 and patient device 36 can be wired or wireless.”
Paragraph 30, where “Network 50 may take a variety of forms such as a local area network, wide area network, or the Internet. When network 50 is, for example, the Internet medical examinations can be conducted between physicians and patients who are geographically situated at long distances from one another. In the case where network 50 is the internet, patient records server 40 is referred to as a patient records internet server. In such cases, patient records internet server 40 can be assigned a unique internet protocol address to which wireless signal transmissions from patient device 36 are directed when patient diagnostic information is generated by diagnostic devices 32.”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 22-29 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 22-29 recite transmitting and encrypting healthcare data on the generically recited computing device as shown in the parent claims above.
Claims 22-23, 28-29 further recite “video conferencing server(s)” which is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the associating and correlating are performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations) as shown in the specification paragraph 22. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 26 further recites “a spirometer, stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, a blood pressure monitor, a blood chemistry analyzer, a pulse oximeter, an ultrasound probe or scale” which is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the associating and correlating are performed using generic input/output computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations) as shown in the specification paragraph 23. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 27 further recites “a personal computer, a tablet computer, a personal data assistant or a cellular telephone” which is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the associating and correlating are performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations) as shown in the specification paragraph 40. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-29 are currently allowable over the prior art. Similar to its parent case of 16/840,642, the independent claim 21 has the claim limitations of "encrypting, by the patient device, the diagnostic information within the patient device using a hypertext transfer protocol secure method, wherein the encryption is based upon a unique user identifier corresponding to a wireless signal generated by the diagnostic device" and “encrypting, by the patient device, first voice and video signals generated during the video conferencing session” in combination with the other claimed limitations overcomes the prior art of record: Kumar (US 20070130287 A1), Gazula (US 20110106557 A1), Boubion (US 20080170689 A1), and Rapaport (US 20100205541 A1). A new prior art search was conducted and found the prior art of Stotts (WO 2019145086 A1) that taught using patient and physician interactions on a secure network, however it did not explicitly teach telehealth conferencing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIMBERLY A. SASS/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights